Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Price Collusion in Two-sided Markets
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper examines how artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithmic pricing can lead to price collusion in two-sided markets.
- The researchers explore the potential for AI-driven algorithms to coordinate pricing strategies and undermine competition, even without explicit communication between firms.
- The work was partially supported by an NSF award.
Plain English Explanation
The paper looks at how AI and automated pricing systems can cause companies in two-sided markets to effectively collude on prices, even without directly talking to each other. In a two-sided market, there are two different groups of customers (e.g. riders and drivers in a ridesharing app) that interact through a platform.
The researchers found that AI-powered pricing algorithms used by companies in these markets can learn to coordinate their prices in a way that reduces competition and harms consumers, similar to traditional price-fixing schemes. This can happen even if the companies don't explicitly communicate or agree to collude - the algorithms can figure it out on their own through trial-and-error.
The paper explores the economic mechanisms behind this type of "algorithmic collusion" and the implications for antitrust policy and consumer protection. It highlights how AI and automation can present new challenges for ensuring fair and competitive markets.
Technical Explanation
The paper develops an economic framework to model two-sided markets where firms use AI-powered pricing algorithms. The authors show that these algorithms can learn to tacitly collude on prices, even without any direct communication between firms.
The model consists of a platform that connects two distinct customer groups (e.g. riders and drivers). Firms on each side of the market set prices to maximize their profits, taking into account the network effects between the two sides. The researchers then introduce AI-based pricing algorithms that can dynamically adjust prices based on observed market conditions.
Through simulations, the authors demonstrate how these algorithms can converge to collusive pricing outcomes, where profits are higher than in a competitive equilibrium. The algorithms are able to learn the interdependence between the two sides of the market and coordinate their pricing strategies accordingly.
The paper also explores how factors like market concentration, algorithm complexity, and the extent of network effects influence the likelihood and stability of this algorithmic collusion. The findings suggest that AI-driven pricing may present new challenges for antitrust enforcement in two-sided markets.
Critical Analysis
The paper makes a valuable contribution by highlighting a potential pitfall of AI-powered pricing in two-sided markets - the risk of tacit collusion. The authors acknowledge that their model makes several simplifying assumptions, such as perfect information and rationality of the algorithms.
In practice, real-world pricing algorithms may be more complex, with limited visibility into competitors' actions and uncertainty about demand conditions. This could introduce additional challenges for achieving and sustaining collusive outcomes. The paper does not explore how factors like algorithmic transparency, consumer awareness, or regulatory interventions could mitigate these risks.
Additionally, the paper focuses on a static analysis of collusive pricing. It would be useful to understand the dynamics of how such collusion might emerge over time, including the potential for firms to undercut each other and disrupt the collusive equilibrium.
Further research is needed to better understand the real-world prevalence and persistence of algorithmic collusion, as well as effective policy responses. Nonetheless, this paper provides an important warning about the potential anti-competitive dangers of AI-driven pricing in platform markets.
Conclusion
This research highlights a concerning possibility - that AI-powered pricing algorithms used by firms in two-sided markets can learn to tacitly collude, leading to higher prices and reduced competition, even without explicit communication or coordination.
The findings suggest that the rise of algorithmic pricing may present new challenges for antitrust regulators and call for a closer examination of how AI and automation can impact market dynamics. As AI becomes more prevalent in business decision-making, policymakers will need to stay vigilant to ensure that technological progress does not come at the expense of consumer welfare and fair competition.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Artificial Intelligence and Algorithmic Price Collusion in Two-sided Markets
Cristian Chica, Yinglong Guo, Gilad Lerman
Algorithmic price collusion facilitated by artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms raises significant concerns. We examine how AI agents using Q-learning engage in tacit collusion in two-sided markets. Our experiments reveal that AI-driven platforms achieve higher collusion levels compared to Bertrand competition. Increased network externalities significantly enhance collusion, suggesting AI algorithms exploit them to maximize profits. Higher user heterogeneity or greater utility from outside options generally reduce collusion, while higher discount rates increase it. Tacit collusion remains feasible even at low discount rates. To mitigate collusive behavior and inform potential regulatory measures, we propose incorporating a penalty term in the Q-learning algorithm.
Read more7/8/2024
0
Tacit algorithmic collusion in deep reinforcement learning guided price competition: A study using EV charge pricing game
Diwas Paudel, Tapas K. Das
Players in pricing games with complex structures are increasingly adopting artificial intelligence (AI) aided learning algorithms to make pricing decisions for maximizing profits. This is raising concern for the antitrust agencies as the practice of using AI may promote tacit algorithmic collusion among otherwise independent players. Recent studies of games in canonical forms have shown contrasting claims ranging from none to a high level of tacit collusion among AI-guided players. In this paper, we examine the concern for tacit collusion by considering a practical game where EV charging hubs compete by dynamically varying their prices. Such a game is likely to be commonplace in the near future as EV adoption grows in all sectors of transportation. The hubs source power from the day-ahead (DA) and real-time (RT) electricity markets as well as from in-house battery storage systems. Their goal is to maximize profits via pricing and efficiently managing the cost of power usage. To aid our examination, we develop a two-step data-driven methodology. The first step obtains the DA commitment by solving a stochastic model. The second step generates the pricing strategies by solving a competitive Markov decision process model using a multi-agent deep reinforcement learning (MADRL) framework. We evaluate the resulting pricing strategies using an index for the level of tacit algorithmic collusion. An index value of zero indicates no collusion (perfect competition) and one indicates full collusion (monopolistic behavior). Results from our numerical case study yield collusion index values between 0.14 and 0.45, suggesting a low to moderate level of collusion.
Read more5/13/2024
0
By Fair Means or Foul: Quantifying Collusion in a Market Simulation with Deep Reinforcement Learning
Michael Schlechtinger, Damaris Kosack, Franz Krause, Heiko Paulheim
In the rapidly evolving landscape of eCommerce, Artificial Intelligence (AI) based pricing algorithms, particularly those utilizing Reinforcement Learning (RL), are becoming increasingly prevalent. This rise has led to an inextricable pricing situation with the potential for market collusion. Our research employs an experimental oligopoly model of repeated price competition, systematically varying the environment to cover scenarios from basic economic theory to subjective consumer demand preferences. We also introduce a novel demand framework that enables the implementation of various demand models, allowing for a weighted blending of different models. In contrast to existing research in this domain, we aim to investigate the strategies and emerging pricing patterns developed by the agents, which may lead to a collusive outcome. Furthermore, we investigate a scenario where agents cannot observe their competitors' prices. Finally, we provide a comprehensive legal analysis across all scenarios. Our findings indicate that RL-based AI agents converge to a collusive state characterized by the charging of supracompetitive prices, without necessarily requiring inter-agent communication. Implementing alternative RL algorithms, altering the number of agents or simulation settings, and restricting the scope of the agents' observation space does not significantly impact the collusive market outcome behavior.
Read more6/6/2024
0
Algorithmic Collusion Without Threats
Eshwar Ram Arunachaleswaran, Natalie Collina, Sampath Kannan, Aaron Roth, Juba Ziani
There has been substantial recent concern that pricing algorithms might learn to ``collude.'' Supra-competitive prices can emerge as a Nash equilibrium of repeated pricing games, in which sellers play strategies which threaten to punish their competitors who refuse to support high prices, and these strategies can be automatically learned. In fact, a standard economic intuition is that supra-competitive prices emerge from either the use of threats, or a failure of one party to optimize their payoff. Is this intuition correct? Would preventing threats in algorithmic decision-making prevent supra-competitive prices when sellers are optimizing for their own revenue? No. We show that supra-competitive prices can emerge even when both players are using algorithms which do not encode threats, and which optimize for their own revenue. We study sequential pricing games in which a first mover deploys an algorithm and then a second mover optimizes within the resulting environment. We show that if the first mover deploys any algorithm with a no-regret guarantee, and then the second mover even approximately optimizes within this now static environment, monopoly-like prices arise. The result holds for any no-regret learning algorithm deployed by the first mover and for any pricing policy of the second mover that obtains them profit at least as high as a random pricing would -- and hence the result applies even when the second mover is optimizing only within a space of non-responsive pricing distributions which are incapable of encoding threats. In fact, there exists a set of strategies, neither of which explicitly encode threats that form a Nash equilibrium of the simultaneous pricing game in algorithm space, and lead to near monopoly prices. This suggests that the definition of ``algorithmic collusion'' may need to be expanded, to include strategies without explicitly encoded threats.
Read more9/9/2024